The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1887-10-01

a distinction that has separated the demo
. cratic party from all Its many rival
: through the whole course of the 100 year.
of American political history, and that dis
tinction lies In constitutional construction
the democrats holding that MI powers mo-
granted by the constitution TO the federal
government remain with the states. Estate
rights is not, as republicans would have
men believe, a synonym OF " secession;
but fundamental doctrine recognized by
the fathers and trainers Of the instrum ent
the recognition of which In the constitu.
ton alone made the adoption Of that in
Capitalization SO fiercely fought for and
against, hundred years ago, and which
has since ever continued the great founda-
ton dividing line between the great parties
OF the nation. The republican party to
day, as Mr.. Carlisle says, is In theory and
practice more extravagant In Its assertion
of what 1t calls national authority than
It's federal projenitor was a century ago."
The greatest danger to the country during
republican possession OF power was the
rapid strides toward Capitalization, and the
making OF the president the American
King" Patrick Henry predicted he would
be. The defeat Of that party, In 1876
checked that progress, while democratic
ascendency has brought quiet and done
away with those conflicts between state and
national authority which had become
menace TO national growth and prosperity,
and eliminated sectional controversies from
the politics of to-day, enabling the people
to take up the many questions of social
and business interest that await solution,
but which the discussion of sectional ami
mosities had for several decades thrust
into the back ground.
As indicative of what may be expected
of the democratic party, ana as reasons for
Its continuance in power, the Speaker calls
attention TO:
~ The Lana Question. The policy OF
the republican party was to get rid of 1t as
fast as possible: give it unearned to rail
roads, spectators, aliens, and syndicates of
citizens and aliens. The democrats, on the
contrary, recognize that the land is the
heritage of the people and should be pre-
served for actual settlers. 1t has, therefore,
as far as a republican senate would allow,
declared forfeited large tracts granted 10
but unearned by railroads, and has made 1t
difficult for spectators 10 grab the best
lands to the exclusion Of the poor settler.
What Is still needed, Is to prevent all spec
ulation, secure the land TO the homeless
labor class, and TO force the railroads to
take patents for all lands actually and le-
gally held by them, that they become sub
ject to state and territorial taxation. Much
has been done by the present administra-
ton in that direction. 1t will do more
when changes In laws made by the repub-
lcans shall enable 1t to do so: changes
that would have been made ere this, but
for republican senate standing In the way.
(2) Reduction Of Resenue and Taxation.
This is the most important question be
fore the people today. All parties admit
the necessities of the case. The only de-
batable question is, How shall this be done
The difference between the two parties is
radical. There is also difference of opin-
lon among the members OF the parties
themselves. In general terms, however,
the republicans favor high protective tar.
If. To preserve this they would remove
the tax on liquors, beer and tobacco, max
ing them free, and increase the customs
duties to a prohibitive point. This would
doubtless reduce the revenue; but II would
not reduce the burdens of the people. If
a protective tariff is protective tariff, ne
cessarily the higher It is the more of 1t the
people must pay-if not into the treasury,
then into the pockets of those protected.
A tariff can no more than man elbow hot
and cold" In the same breath. 1t cannot |
'raise wages" and cheaper production at
one and the same time. If 1t does not en-.
able the manufacturer to charge higher
prices, how can he be benefited by 1t? and |
how can he pay the higher wages he says
he can? If 1t actually reduces prices be-
low what they would be without the tariff
protection, is It not an injury to him? How
can 1t be otherwise? The democratic |
party is not free trade" party, as repub-
licans would have men believe; but 1t does |
believe that taxation should be reduced on |
the food and clothing of the poor, the raw
materials they work, their implements of |
labor, their building material, medicines,
and other articles indispensable in the sup |
port of their families. However the mat !
ter may yet be adjusted, the question will
surely involve free whisky, beer and to-
bacco, as opposed to free food fuel, cloth. |
ing, and other necessaries Of life, the re- |
publicans favoring free liquors and tobacco
and high taxes on necessaries, and the |
democrats cheap necessaries and taxed lu |
uors and tobacco. The tax on the latter is |
paid by those who voluntarily use them